Standing Committee E

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths, you will be aware that the amendments that the Government added at the last minute refer to the Public Health Laboratory Service board. I have not yet received a copy of the explanatory notes, and I wonder whether the Minister will be kind and pass me a copy, which I can read while he is speaking.

Win Griffiths: Well, we have heard that.Schedule 12 Repeals and revocations

Schedule 12 - Repeals and revocations

John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 602, in
schedule 12, page 135, line 26, at end add— 
 Abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board 
 Reference 
 Extent of repeal or revocation 
 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c.13) 
 In Schedule 3, in paragraph 8(1) the words ''or by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board''. 
 House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24) 
 In Schedule 1, in Part 3, the entry relating to the Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. 
 Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74) 
 In Schedule 1A, in Part 2, the entry relating to the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. 
 National Health Service Act 1977 (c.49) 
 Section 5(4) and (5). 
 In section 127(c) the words ''(except the Public Health Laboratory Service Board)'' 
 Schedule 3 
 Public Health Laboratory Service Act 1979 (c.23) 
 Sections 1(3) and (4) and 2. 
 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1) 
 Section 519A(2)(h). 
 National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19) 
 Section 4(2)(h). 
 In section 21(2), paragraph (c) and the preceding ''and''. 
 In section 60(7), paragraph (h) and the preceding ''and''. 
 Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46) 
 In section 2(1), paragraph (g) and the preceding ''and''. 
 Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) 
 In section 218(10), paragraph (c) and the preceding ''and''. 
 Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) 
 In Schedule 5, paragraph 39. 
 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) 
 In Schedule 1, paragraph 43. 
 International Development Act 2002 (c.1) 
 In Schedule 1 the words ''Public Health Laboratory Service Board''. 
 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) 
 In section 133(4)—{**em**}in paragraph (a), subparagraph (v) and the preceding ''or''; in paragraph (b), subparagraph (iii) and the preceding ''or''.'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may discuss the following:
 Government new clause 18—Abolition of Public Health Laboratory Service Board. 
 Government new schedule 1—Amendments consequential on the abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

John Hutton: The amendments provide for the abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service board. The PHLS has played a long and distinguished role in protecting the health of the population since before the start of the second world war. I am glad to have an opportunity today to pay tribute to its many achievements over that period.
 The Government are responsible for keeping the arrangements for health protection always under review. Last year, we consulted on proposals to create the new Health Protection Agency. The proposals were aimed at strengthening existing arrangements by integrating in one body responsibility for action not only on infectious diseases but on chemicals and radiological protection. I am glad to say that support for the proposals was widespread. We have taken them forward, and the Health Protection Agency was established as a special health authority on 1 April this year. Many of the functions previously carried out by the PHLS, along with the staff concerned, have already transferred to the new agency.

Chris Grayling: Is it not the case that the statutory instrument establishing the special health authority has not yet been passed by the House?

John Hutton: I am not aware of that, but the agency has certainly been established and is operational. I will examine the issues concerning the parliamentary timetable and clarify them for the hon. Gentleman.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friends and I prayed against a statutory instrument that was due in Standing Committee some weeks ago. That Committee had to be postponed because it would have clashed with this Committee's sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and I have been waiting for it to be rearranged for some time. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has a point because it would have been good to discuss the secondary legislation before discussing this primary legislation.

John Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that it would have been better to do that. The order is subject to the negative resolution procedure and the agency has already been established. If the House were to annul the regulations, we would have to introduce others. The negative resolution procedure is
 not an obstacle to the new special health authority beginning its operations.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not, in the long-term, leave the agency as an executive agency, but intend to create a non-departmental public body, presumably through further primary legislation, to incorporate the National Radiological Protection Board? When will that happen, and why is the Bill not an appropriate legislative vehicle for that?

John Hutton: We shall deal with the Health Protection Agency in primary legislation at the first available opportunity. We could not do that in the Bill for a variety of reasons, most of which concerned the preparation of the Bill. We want to do that as soon as possible, and it will certainly be necessary. I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the functions of the NRPB. However, the HPA has been established and is up and running, and we want to build on that in subsequent primary legislation.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister confirm whether Parliament has yet to endorse the formation of the special health authority and its legal status as an organisation of the HPA?

John Hutton: It is a special health authority and has been set up as such. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for reminding me that the regulation has been prayed against. [Interruption.]

Win Griffiths: Order. Conversations in the Room are getting rather loud.

John Hutton: It is possible that the House may decide to annul the regulations, but then we would have to introduce other regulations to give effect to our intention. However, the establishment of the special health authority would not be affected by that procedure. As I understand it, prior authority was not required to set up the special health authority.
 To return to the amendment, the functions of the PHLS have been transferred, largely to the special health authority. One residual function for which it will remain responsible is the supply of some of the microbiology culture used by the NHS. Obviously, it will be necessary to review with the PHLS how such supplies can best be secured in the future. We would not want to abolish it unless and until those issues had been properly resolved, as I am sure they will be. 
 In a nutshell, there is no further need for the PHLS or its board to remain in existence on the statute book. We announced our intention last November to abolish them when legislative time permitted. The new clause simply puts that policy into effect.

Chris Grayling: It was interesting that the Minister did not pass me a copy of the explanatory notes. Given the Committee's experience some 10 days ago of the Government's failure to provide notes to a very late set of amendments and the scramble that took place immediately afterwards to provide them, I would have thought that the Department had learned its lesson and would ensure that such information was provided
 when introducing a totally new dimension to the Bill, as it has in the amendment.
 The proposal was not set out in the original draft of the Bill. That would have been perfectly possible, because plans to form the HPA and to take responsibilities from the PHLS were set out many months ago. There is no earthly reason for such matters not to have been included in the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Department has failed to come forward with any explanatory notes in advance of the Minister's remarks.

John Hutton: I did not respond to the hon. Gentleman's point because I understood that the ruling of the Chair was that it was not a point of order; otherwise, I would have. It may be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that the provision of such notes is not customary practice. In fact, I cannot remember previous Governments, particularly Conservative Governments, producing additional notes. It is the practice on the introduction of a Bill to provide a set of explanatory notes and an explanatory memorandum, but it is not a rule or procedure of the House to provide notes for subsequent Government amendments tabled in Committee. We do so as a courtesy to advise members of the Committee what is happening.
 As the hon. Gentleman helpfully reminded the Committee, the policy was announced several months ago, so every member of the Committee would have been fully aware of it.

Chris Grayling: The provision of notes may indeed be a convention, but common courtesy dictates that, if a new dimension is added to a Bill at a very late stage, it would do no harm, to say the least, to provide such information, particularly given the Committee's experience last week when the sitting had to be suspended because of the Department's failure to brief Members about the steps that it was taking. I am surprised that it saw fit to table additional clauses without providing information.

John Hutton: In a sense, the Committee is demob-happy this afternoon, which is not surprising, given that we all lead other lives.
 The hon. Gentleman is expounding a very interesting constitutional principle. One thing that I have learned, not only in government but in opposition, is that when Opposition parties table very long, complicated amendments, we never have any explanatory notes or memorandums from them. That is a constitutional theory that he might like to develop.

Chris Grayling: I can safely say to the Minister that, if we come face to face again across the Committee Room and if he is puzzled by any of the amendments that I have been involved in tabling, I would be delighted to take a phone call from him and explain them to him.

Evan Harris: The constructive point, which I hope is still just within order, is that if GPs vote tomorrow to support, or make an announcement that they support, the new contract, and the Government then table a huge number of new clauses on Report as we expect, a
 set of explanatory notes will be welcome and very important.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Clearly, that is on a different level from this issue.

John Hutton: We shall certainly do that.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that. So, setting that point aside—

Win Griffiths: Order. That is exactly what I was going to say. Can the hon. Gentleman carry on with his comments on the amendment?

Chris Grayling: It is quite extraordinary that the Government are introducing in Committee a measure to abolish the residual PHLS before the House has debated the formation of the new organisation. Up to now, there has been only a Government announcement to the press. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there has been no statement to the Chamber about the plans, although there have been several written answers. The Government have made no formal statement to the House and have offered it no opportunity to debate the change.
 This is quite a substantial change. The Government are bringing together a significant number of previously autonomous and separate bodies, and they are transferring laboratory services from a central organisation that provides a national monitoring network of outbreaks of disease and potential incidents of biological and chemical attack. That structure has been totally changed. The laboratories that would have provided that on-the-ground service have been transferred into local NHS trusts.

Andrew Lansley: On that point, which is relevant to something that I hope to say if I catch your eye, Mr. Griffiths, that does not include all laboratories. Nine regional laboratories have been retained as part of the Health Protection Agency, including the one on Addenbrooke's site in my constituency.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point of clarification, but none the less, of the 44 public health laboratories, the vast majority—80 per cent.—have transferred to local trusts.
 The reality is that a major change has taken place, which we are being asked finally to rubber-stamp today in the amendments. We are being asked to approve the abolition of the PHLS before the House has had the opportunity to debate the formation of the Health Protection Agency. I commend the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on his prayer against the measure, which I very much support. I confess to having been beaten to something by his team—not a frequent occurrence. I can update him—that Committee sitting is due to be held on 26 June. 
 That will be the first opportunity that the House will have to discuss the changes and to decide whether it wants to establish a special health authority. Six days earlier, a Standing Committee is being asked to finalise the abolition of the predecessor body. That seems constitutionally bizarre and, at the very least, an improper approach to the processes of the House. In 
 my view, such significant changes should be debated properly before final decisions are taken. That is what next week's debate will enable MPs to do, but many months too late. The Government seem to believe that they can produce their policies, enact them and then ask the House for approval as an afterthought; that cannot be right. 
 I turn to the residual point. We know that most laboratories were transferred to NHS trusts or to the Health Protection Agency on 1 April. There is now only a residue of the previous organisation. The Minister made reference to the culture development operations at the PHLS, saying that no decisions have yet been taken about them and that the measure will not be enacted before the rest of the package. He will be aware that there has been considerable speculation, not least among staff, that the end process of the exercise will be privatisation or some form of trade sale of the culture operations. 
 Can I ask the Minister if that is one of the possibilities being considered? If he does not intend to privatise what is effectively a business—he made reference to whether the NHS had to secure the future supply of such cultures—is he considering a closure? Is he looking to buy cultures for the laboratories from third-party sources in future, or does he intend to retain the operation as a state-owned business? I would be grateful if he could clarify that for the Committee. 
 Will the Minister also clarify another point of confusion following the establishment of the HPA? One of the responsibilities that the former public health laboratories had was the monitoring of food. There may have been poisons in food, such as toxins put in deliberately. Let us consider the example of a food scare in relation to baby food. The message would have gone out from the centre of the PHLS to the different laboratories to say that they needed to investigate the matter. Laboratory staff would have gone to supermarkets and bought supplies of the brand of baby food concerned, and run tests on it. That would happen all around the country, and as a result, they would have been able to identify whether they were dealing with a one-off incident or a significant incident spread over a broad geographic area. 
 I understand that, with the dismantling of the public health laboratories, a number of the trusts taking over laboratories have declined to take responsibility for food, water and environmental microbiology. If a number of NHS trusts have declined to take over responsibility for key areas such as food monitoring, do those responsibilities still remain with the residual body of the PHLS? In today's discussion, are we seeking to abolish those bodies? If it is not the case that the residual body has retained responsibility, when did the transfer of responsibility for the monitoring of food take place, and where has it gone? Who is now responsible for the monitoring of foods as previously carried out by the PHLS? 
 I also want to ask about the residual financial liabilities for the PHLS. It was not clear from written 
 answers that I received before 1 April what would happen to those liabilities. Have they been transferred to the Health Protection Agency, and if so, in what amount? If not, do they remain with the Public Health Laboratories Board, and if so, in what amount? If they remain with the Public Health Laboratories Board, what will happen to those liabilities when the measure is enacted? Is that simply a liability that will be absorbed by Government? Will the Minister explain that? 
 Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister about a further dimension of the statutory and legal issue. He made mention of the fact that the establishment of the HPA as a non-departmental public body was not in the Bill and would have to return as future legislation. Clearly the legislative timetable in the House is extremely full, and it is certain to be some time before that can take place. Will the Minister explain more clearly, given the time frame that we have discussed in relation to the policy change, why it was not possible to start work on the relevant drafting much earlier? 
 Given that it has proved possible to bring forward an amendment that would allow the abolition of a core residual body, why was it not possible to establish the Health Protection Agency as a non-departmental public body? Is that because of disputes that remain between the Scottish Executive and the Government in Westminster over the relationships between the different parts of the National Radiological Protection Board in England and Scotland, and the reluctance in Scotland to have a national body covering that area? I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points for the Committee.

Andrew Lansley: I want to comment on the Health Protection Agency. I hope that you will bear with me, Mr. Griffiths. My remarks will not necessarily relate precisely to the residual functions, but I hope that you will give me a little latitude.

Win Griffiths: I am listening carefully.

Andrew Lansley: Indeed. I shall try to stick as closely as I can to the subject. I suspect that I shall not be present if there is a discussion about the establishment of the special health authority next week.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell raised a number of questions, to which it would be interesting to have the answers. I had understood that, as far as the east of England was concerned, responsibility for food, water and the environment had gone to Chelmsford to a separate laboratory under the HPA. It will be interesting to see if that is how things work.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will be aware that the original intention was that responsibility for food would remain within the individual local laboratories. In some cases, the trusts have refused to take responsibility.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.
 The Minister expressed his appreciation of what is being done by the Public Health Laboratory Service. I just wanted to add my appreciation to that. About 100 staff work in the laboratory at Addenbrooke's in my constituency and we appreciate the value of the work that they do. During the past few weeks—my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will be aware of this—the only identified SARS case in the east of England, which originated in Chelmsford, was identified in an ambulance and transferred to Addenbrooke's. The laboratory at Addenbrooke's and the communicable disease surveillance centre at Colindale would do the work associated with dealing with that virus. To give another example, I know that many Members will be concerned, as Ministers are, about the level of hospital-acquired infections. The laboratory at Addenbrooke's is taking a leading role in the expanded reporting on hospital-acquired infections that Ministers are rightly expecting of NHS hospitals—going beyond methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. 
 The laboratories are involved in vital tasks. Although the structure has changed, I want to ensure that there will be co-ordination between a range of different functions extending to the support of emergencies, including chemical, biological and radiological releases into the environment. All that activity should certainly be brought together in relation to emergency responses. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill was published elsewhere today. That is a further instance of the way in which things need to be connected properly to create a more effective route for dealing not only with naturally occurring diseases, but with emergencies that might arise through terrorism. 
 It would be useful to explore a number of issues with the Minister. I will not necessarily raise questions; I will talk about my feelings about how things will develop. As I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, not all the laboratories have transferred to the host trusts. In particular, the laboratory at Addenbrooke's, which is one of the nine regional laboratories, continues to be directly provided as a laboratory of the Health Protection Agency and the staff are the agency's staff. On the face of it, that is not a problem, but in the context of the Bill a different question arises. The Committee will have heard more often than it would have thought likely about the likelihood of the Addenbrooke's NHS trust becoming a first wave foundation hospital. One of the consequences of that is that Addenbrooke's may be an early implementer of ''Agenda for Change''. As the Minister knows, that may well lead to the exercise of additional pay flexibilities in that context at Addenbrooke's from an early date. 
 That is fine; I have no problem with it, and it is highly desirable that it should happen, but if the Health Protection Agency is not implementing ''Agenda for Change'' at the same time as Addenbrooke's, staff of the same character from the same professional groups on the same site might be earning different amounts as a result. There would be difficult consequences for recruitment for the Health 
 Protection Agency laboratory on the Addenbrooke's site, even if that were only transitional. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind, not in order to delay the implementation of ''Agenda for Change'', but perhaps to ensure that if those two things are to happen, they can at least happen alongside each other on the same site, which would be much better for management reasons. 
 It is also true that the way in which the pathology and microbiology of hospitals in the Cambridge area are being managed is increasingly a matter of networks. I opened the new laboratories at Papworth hospital, which is also seeking to be a first-wave foundation trust. One consultant and several functions there are in practice managed by Papworth and Addenbrooke's together. In effect, a clinical network is already established between different hospitals, including the West Suffolk hospital, which has no intention of becoming a foundation trust in the first instance. We have a network, and a range of laboratory managements will actively run such matters together. However, the Addenbrooke's laboratory sits outside in the Health Protection Agency and is on a contract to the trust. 
 It is not for me to prejudice management discussions and I am not expert enough to be able to say whether it would be right for the laboratory to transfer to Addenbrooke's and be part of Addenbrooke's management, but I certainly hope that the Department can confirm that it is thinking carefully about that and is in active discussions with Addenbrooke's. If it is to have the management independence implied by foundation status, Addenbrooke's should be able to manage its pathology and microbiology activity as well. To do that, it would be better for it to own the laboratory, and contract to, and provide a service for, the Health Protection Agency, rather than the other way round. 
 One of the principle issues that stands between the present situation and that event is the structure of funding, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned. If I understand it correctly, apart from Addenbrooke's contract with the trust, there is the question of core funding. The purpose of core funding is, in theory, the provision of funding to allow research and development, to provide for the public health and emergency activities of the laboratory and to allow an excess of capacity in the laboratory, beyond what the trust itself would purchase, to meet surges in demand. Particularly in the case of an outbreak in infection, that would enable it to respond with all the necessary laboratory capacity. However, in practice, core funding has tended to subsidise trusts' normal day-to-day activities. 
 If PCTs are to commission such activity from trusts in future, they will look carefully at what precisely the laboratories offer. If a PCT is to be responsible for core funding, instead of just having ring-fenced funds that are automatically transferred from the trust for laboratory activity, it will want to know more specifically what it is buying from the trust. It might not necessarily pursue the same route that has been pursued in the past: paying for surge capacity, paying 
 for research, and supporting and subsidising the trust's activities. My point is that one must be more sure about the level of funding that will be provided through the primary care trusts to laboratories that pass into the ownership of the hospital trusts or, in Addenbrooke's case, the foundation trust. If the Minister cannot help on that matter today, I hope that he can clarify how the core funding will work soon. 
 I have one other point, which is allied to the point about ''Agenda for Change''. In the past—I am trying to remember precisely when—I have tackled the Department of Health on the status of a number of health service professions and their ability to recruit. Addenbrooke's high reputation means that it is not difficult to recruit medical staff and, in particular, senior medical staff. 
 It is difficult to recruit biomedical scientists, who are an essential part of the laboratory process at Addenbrooke's. Not only do I want the question of ''Agenda for Change'' to be resolved, but there is a wider question about the recruitment of staff for the Public Health Laboratory Service or the Health Protection Agency. It is certainly possible for a biomedical scientist to become a clinical scientist and even to reach consultant status. In the past, I have argued to Ministers that we should be more open to the possibility of people moving between professions, or, more to the point, biomedical scientists, while remaining within the profession, should be able to acquire the status associated with clinical scientists up to and including consultants. For a graduate profession, biomedical scientists lack status within the NHS and their pay levels are very low compared with their qualifications and other professions. 
 Having said that, I must declare a family interest: some 32 years ago my father was chairman of the Institute of Biomedical Science. When Labour Members were decrying Conservative Members' recognition of and support for the values of the NHS—my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford may be entertained by this—I was sitting here and looking across the river because on the day that the NHS was created, my father was working in a laboratory in County hall for London county council. He became an NHS employee on that day and worked for it for the rest of his working life—happily, he is still alive—including working at East Ham memorial hospital for about 30 years before retiring in 1983. He was always an NHS employee, and he and I have always subscribed to the values of the NHS.

Win Griffiths: Order. I feel that I have helped the hon. Gentleman, but I must ask him to refer to the amendment or to take his seat.

Andrew Lansley: You have been a gent, Mr. Griffiths. Happily, I am about to conclude, but I wanted to find an opportunity to tell that story, and I thought that the issue of biomedical scientists in my constituency in the laboratory at Addenbrooke's was a suitable moment.
 I hope that the Minister will consider my thoughts on the practical issues concerning the Health 
 Protection Agency, and in particular HPA laboratories as distinct from those that have been transferred to the trusts that house them.

John Hutton: I shall briefly deal with some of the points raised by Opposition Members. On the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on core funding, for the convenience of the Committee it will be better if I write to him, and I am happy to copy the letter to other members of the Committee. He raised several questions about ''Agenda for Change'' and the overall level of pay in the NHS for biomedical scientists. It is true that Papworth, because it is applying for NHS foundation trust status, that will be one of the early implementers of ''Agenda for Change'', and that should be welcome news for the staff at that trust. Obviously, the staff on the site who now work for the HPA work for a different employer. I understand that the close proximity with Papworth—

Andrew Lansley: Addenbrooke's.

John Hutton: Addenbrooke's, I am sorry. The HPA staff at Addenbrooke's are not covered by our early implementation agreements with the trade unions on ''Agenda for Change'', and it is probably best to stick to the agreements if we can.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the problem is one of transition. The time period is actually relatively short. Subject, of course, to the experience of the early implementers, we will move to national implementation of ''Agenda for Change'' by next October. Therefore, I am fairly confident that the time involved will not operate in the negative manner that he fears. 
 I agree about the overall importance of attracting science graduates into biomedical science careers in the NHS. It has not always been easy to do that. Biomedical science is one of those vital NHS jobs that never get the publicity or focus that they merit. It is an essential service, and it is true that it has never offered the right pay. 
 I am glad that those issues are now being addressed, not only in the action that we have already taken to increase the starting salaries of, for example, biomedical scientists, but also in the proposals in ''Agenda for Change''. I am confident that we are heading in the right direction. We certainly need to, because so much work of the NHS depends on the skills and commitment of biomedical scientists. 
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell asked about the media production facilities that the PHLS continues to operate. He knows, because he pays attention to such matters, that the PHLS board is consulting on options for the future of those facilities, including transferring them to other parts of the NHS or to the independent sector. No decision has yet been made on the final disposal options, and it is unlikely that there will be one until later this summer. 
 I apologise to the Committee for not making it very clear in my opening remarks—perhaps other comments would have been shorter, particularly 
 those from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell—how important it is that we all understand what we are doing in these arrangements, not just with the new clause but in the transfer of functions to the Health Protection Agency. We are not diluting the importance of this NHS service but finding a way to improve its effectiveness. 
 It is always worth bearing in mind that the PHLS laboratories have done an outstanding job of work for the country. We should never forget that. However, 32 former PHLS laboratories were transferred to local NHS management as of 31 March, and a much larger number—10 times that many—of laboratories that provide a similar service already operate under local NHS management in England.

Chris Grayling: Does the Minister realise that in most cases where the transfer has taken place there is not yet an individual charged with responsibility for delivering HPA requirements? I understand that service level agreements are not yet in place to ensure that the information that would have flowed from the laboratory to the centre continues to do so.

John Hutton: Obviously, the focus is on maintaining the quality levels of service in the laboratories. It is the job of the HPA to ensure that they are not lost.
 The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the transfer of residual liabilities. Liabilities in respect of the laboratories were transferred with the functions to the HPA at 31 March. That is covered by the statutory instrument, which will be subject to parliamentary debate later this month. Liabilities for media production will remain with the PHLS board, but the clause makes provision for any residual liabilities to transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should the need arise. 
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell asked about food, water and environmental microbiological testing. He will be aware that in England, HPA-run laboratories are concentrating on reference microbiology. The HPA is responsible for providing food, water and environmental microbiology for local authorities as the Public Health Laboratory Service previously did, which local authorities said that they wanted. Food, water and environmental microbiological testing will be commissioned by the Health Protection Agency on a business-as-usual basis. I have not been advised of any trusts that have refused to take responsibility for food, water or environmental sample testing. If the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has examples where he thinks that is the case, I would be grateful if he would write to me and let me know so that I can take action to ensure that proper levels of service are maintained. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 177 - Commencement

John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 334, in
clause 177, page 90, line 27, leave out 'to 48 and'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 335 to 338, 451 and 561.
 Government new clause 17—Amendment of provision relating to reform of Welsh health authorities.

John Hutton: The amendments make changes to the commencement clause. Amendment No. 334 is consequential to amendments Nos. 279, 280 and 281, which as hon. Members will remember, removed clauses 46, 47 and 48 of the original Bill. The clauses relate to annual reviews, other reviews and investigations, and failures in compliance by NHS foundation trusts.
 Amendment No. 335 inserts in the appropriate place a reference to clause 82 of the Bill to correct another error in the Bill. Amendment No. 336 also corrects an error in the original print of the Bill. Amendment No. 337 reflects the fact that the current clause relating to the Commission for Social Care Inspection's duty to have regard to Government policy is being replaced by a new clause. The provision provides for a commencement of that new clause. 
 Amendments Nos. 338 and 451 provide for the commencement of the new clauses in the Bill relating to CSCI's ability to provide advice and assistance to the Governments of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands at their request, and to publish reports of its inspections of boarding schools. New clause 17 and amendment No. 561 cover technical matters, which I hope will not take too long to go through. 
 New clause 17 corrects an error in the Government of Wales Act 1998, arising from an amendment to that Act made by the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. As it stands, section 27A of the 1998 Act refers to section 8(5)(b) of the National Health Act 1977, when it should refer to section 8(7)(b). The new clause corrects that error, which arose because of a renumbering of the provisions in the later Act. 
 Amendment No. 561 makes an amendment to clause 177 to provide for the new clause to come into force on Royal Assent, which will enable the statute book to be corrected as soon as possible.

Chris Grayling: I have two questions for the Minister. One relates to subsection (1), which states that the provisions
''shall come into force on such day as the appropriate authority may by order appoint.''
 I am concerned that if the measures are introduced at separate times in Wales and England, we could end up with the curious anomaly of having a new Welsh inspectorate set up before the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection was set up. Therefore, the Welsh inspectorate would have to deal with the Commission for Health Improvement before CHAI was set up. It would seem illogical that there are separate commencement dates for measures that apply jointly to England and Wales, or where there is logical and obvious operational need for the changes to continue in parallel. I would also like to ask the Minister if he could explain the purpose of subsection (3).

John Hutton: Clause 177(3) is a traditional clause. He will find similar provisions in most commencement clauses. It is fairly evident what it means: different days may be appointed for different purposes in the context of commencement. In relation to the point about commencement in Wales, I hope that that situation will not arise, but I do not believe it would be a huge difficulty if it did. In this House we have all had to come to terms—the Government have done so willingly, the Opposition less so—with the fact that devolution means that in Wales, those decisions are taken by the National Assembly. We in this House make decisions for England, but that is the devolution settlement.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 335, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 28, after '120', insert '82'.
 No. 336, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 28, after '120', insert '122, 124'.
 No. 337, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 28, after '120', insert 
 '(duty to have regard to government policy: CSCI),'.
 No. 338, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 28, after '120', insert 
 '(arrangements with the Isle of Man and Channel Islands: CSCI),'.
 No. 502, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 33, leave out 'section 42' and insert 
 'sections 42 and (CHAI fees: Wales)'.
 No. 451, in 
clause 177, page 90, line 36, after '105', insert 
 'and (boarding schools and colleges: reports)'.—
 No. 561, in 
clause 177, page 91, line 13, at end add 
 'or to section (amendment of provision relating to reform of Welsh health authorities)'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

George Young: The clause deals with the commencement orders. On what day does the Minister, as the appropriate authority, intend to introduce the various parts of the Bill?

John Hutton: Yes, right. How much time does the right hon. Gentleman think we have to do that? I cannot give him a specific timetable for the introduction of every clause of the Bill, and he knows perfectly well why. Some of those decisions will be made on the basis of contingent events as yet unclear. We will introduce the Bill and commence the clauses, and we will keep him informed; obviously, he will want to know when we do all those things. We talked about our commencement intentions in many of our discussions on earlier clauses, and he will want to reflect on that. For example, in relation to the provisions that we discussed during this morning's proceedings—I do not know whether he was here—we have in mind to introduce and commence the dental provisions no later than April 2005.
 There will be different dates for different parts of the Bill, depending on other developments. The clauses on foundation trusts will be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 177, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 178 - Transitional or transitory

John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 632, in
clause 178, page 91, line 21, leave out 
 'in relation to Part 3'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 633.

John Hutton: Again, these are minor, technical amendments that will allow any order-making transitional, supplementary or consequential provision under clauses 178 or 179 to modify an Act of the Scottish Parliament if necessary. That will allow, for example, cross-references to this Bill, should it be enacted, to be made in Scottish legislation.
 Originally, it was thought that that would be necessary only in relation to part 3, but on further consideration we have decided that we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be necessary to make such provisions in relation to other parts of the Bill, such as part 4 and the welfare food provisions in part 5. The amendments are simply designed to enable us to do that if necessary.

Chris Grayling: I have a quick question for the Minister. Is the amendment purely technical, or will it permit statutory changes to Scottish legislation? If so, that slightly goes against the devolution principle. Where is the line drawn with these powers?

John Hutton: The amendment does not go against the devolution settlement. It is designed to reflect the proper division of responsibilities between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and the Westminster Parliament. This is about defining parameters and ensuring that the legislation is amended as provided for here in relation to matters that are not devolved.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 178, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 179 - Supplementary and consequential provision

Amendment made: No. 633, in 
clause 179, page 91, line 33, leave out 
 'in relation to Part 3'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
 Clause 179, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 180 - Extent

Amendment made: No. 625, in 
clause 180, page 91, line 39, at end insert 
 '(subject to any express limitation contained in this Act)'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 634, in
clause 180, page 92, line 1, at end insert— 
 '( ) sections 119 and 120;'.
 I reassure the Committee that this is a minor technical amendment that will not take too long to deal with. Clauses 119 and 120 allow CHAI and CSCI to enter into arrangements with the Ministers responsible to inspect health and social services provided in settings such as the armed forces. Clearly, as responsibility for the armed forces is not a devolved matter, such arrangements theoretically could extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendment extends the clauses to Scotland. As members of the Committee will know, the Bill already provides that the clauses extend to Northern Ireland. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 180, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 181 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 17 - Amendment of provision relating to reform of Welsh health authorities

'In section 27 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (reform of Welsh health authorities), in subsection (7), for '(5)(b)' substitute '(7)(b)'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18 - Abolition of Public Health

'(1) The Public Health Laboratory Service Board is abolished. 
 (2) Schedule [Amendments consequential on abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board] has effect. 
 (3) On the day this section is commenced by order under section 177 the property, rights and liabilities of the Board vest in the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1 - Amendments consequential on the

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c.13) 
 1 In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters not subject to examination) the words ''or by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board'' are omitted. 
 House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24) 
 2 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices) the entry relating to the 
Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board is omitted. 
 Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74) 
 3 In Part 2 of Schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976 (additional bodies subject to a general statutory duty) the entry relating to the Public Health Laboratory Service Board is omitted. 
 National Health Service Act 1977 (c.49) 
 4 In the National Health Service Act 1977— 
 (a) in section 5 (provision of other services), subsections (4) and (5) are omitted; 
 (b) in section 127(c) the words ''(except the Public Health Laboratory Service Board)'' are omitted; 
 (c) Schedule 3 (Public Health Laboratory Service Board) is omitted. 
 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1) 
 5 In section 519A(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (definition of health bodies) paragraph (h) is omitted. 
 National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19) 
 6 In the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990— 
 (a) in section 4(2) (NHS contracts) paragraph (h) is omitted; 
 (b) in section 21(2) (schemes for meeting losses and liabilities of certain health service bodies) paragraph (c) and the word ''and'' preceding it are omitted; 
 (c) in section 60(7) (removal of Crown immunities) paragraph (h) and the word ''and'' preceding it are omitted. 
 Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46) 
 7 In section 2(1) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (bodies subject to investigation) paragraph (g) and the word ''and'' preceding it are omitted. 
 Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) 
 8 In section 218(10) (list of health service employers affected by continuity of employment provisions) paragraph (c) and the word ''and'' preceding it are omitted. 
 Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) 
 9 (1) In Schedule 5 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (bodies covered by power of Assembly to require under section 74 of that Act certain persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents), paragraph 39 is omitted. 
 (2) But subparagraph (1) does not affect a requirement made— 
 (a) before this paragraph comes into force; 
 (b) in relation to any matter which occurred or existed before that time. 
 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) 
 10 In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities for the purposes of the Act) paragraph 43 is omitted. 
 International Development Act 2002 (c.1) 
 11 In Schedule 1 to the International Development Act 2002 (bodies with power to enter into certain arrangements) the words ''Public Health Laboratory Service Board'' are omitted. 
 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) 
 12 In section 133(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (disclosure of certain information to health service bodies)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a) the word ''or'' is inserted after subparagraph (iii) and subparagraph (v) and the word ''or'' preceding it are omitted; 
 (b) in paragraph (b) the word ''or'' is inserted after subparagraph (i) and subparagraph (iii) and the word ''or'' preceding it are omitted.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

John Hutton: At this happy moment—[Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear!''] I know that everyone wants me to make this brief, and I will. May I record, on behalf of my hon. Friends and, I hope, other hon. Members—they will speak for themselves—our appreciation of the way in which you and Mr. Atkinson have chaired our proceedings, Mr. Griffiths? In a delightful way, you have been strict, fair and funny and we have all enjoyed serving under your leadership. I also extend, through you, our appreciation to the Officers of the House who have, again, shown distinction in supporting the work of right hon. and hon. Members. It may not be customary, but I should like briefly to express my appreciation to the many officials in the Department of Health who have provided support to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have greatly appreciated their help.
 This has been a generally well-tempered Committee. We have had some good debates, which have been of a high quality. I finish by expressing my appreciation to all members of the Committee, on both sides, for their forbearance and good humour, which have made the past four or five weeks of my life an unforgettable experience.

Simon Burns: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thank you and Mr. Atkinson for the exemplary way in which you have chaired our proceedings, Mr. Griffiths. You made them flow with ease and humour, and in a way that achieved the purposes of the Committee. I also thank the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks. As you know, Mr. Griffiths, we do not have access to parliamentary draftsmen, so we are particularly grateful to the Clerks for their help, which has been beyond the call of duty, in assisting us to make our opposition more relevant and effective.
 I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for all that they have done during this Committee to make it both informative and interesting. 
 I congratulate the Minister on the fluent way in which he led for the Government. I also congratulate him on being the great survivor of the Department of Health, despite our having started a mere five weeks ago. Then, we had three Ministers from the Department in the Committee; now, like ''Home Alone'', the Minister is here alone as the only representative of the Department of Health. 
 I also congratulate the Government Whip on his promotion during the course of our proceedings. 
 Perhaps surprisingly, there is one member of the Committee to whom every Member on both sides of the Committee—except perhaps two—owes thanks. I should like to pay particular tribute to the honesty and straightforwardness of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who, unfortunately, is not present in the Committee. For many years, Government and Conservative Members have made the case that the Liberal Democrats will tell anyone anything in the hope of winning a vote. Thanks to this Committee and the honesty of the hon. Lady, we now have that on the record. 
 The Conservative party is reminding people throughout the country—as, no doubt, is the Labour party—of our second sitting, so many weeks and debates ago. It stands out like a beacon as a rare occasion of honesty and straightforwardness. When asked how an hon. Member can vote against the principle of foundation hospitals on the Floor of the House and then, within a week, tell the Committee that she supports her constituents' bid for foundation status in her constituency, the hon. Lady told us: 
''We can all modify our opinions according to local circumstances.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 13 May 2003; c. 57.]

Evan Harris: I was about to associate myself with all the comments that have just been made by the Minister and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoiled that. With the exception of his final comments, on which I shall not be drawn at length but to which I will return, I should like to associate myself with what he said.
 The Minister said that the conduct of the Committee had made the last five weeks of his life unforgettable. I hope that he did not mean that literally and that he was not claiming that his life was to be terminated. I hope that he was referring to the ''past'' five weeks of his life. 
 It is no reflection on the Minister or on your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths—and that of your colleague, Mr. Atkinson—that we did not discuss a significant number of clauses, particularly those dealing with CHAI and CSCI. The House should reflect on whether it is satisfactory that under a programme motion, we have spare time at the end of this sitting that could have been used for consideration 
 of those clauses. It is worth noting that—through no fault of yours, Mr. Griffiths, your colleague or, indeed, Opposition Members—large chunks of the Bill will go on to the statute book without being discussed in Committee. 
 Finally, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford must be dealt with. I am pleased that he has corrected himself. When he first raised what he considers to be those famous words, he said that my hon. Friend had said that principles could be altered according to local circumstances. He has demonstrated that he was wrong to say that—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman claimed on a number of occasions, as he can see from the record, that my hon. Friend had said that people's principles could be altered to fit local circumstances. That is not what she said. 
 The hon. Gentleman gave me notice five weeks ago that he would raise this and I am prepared to put on the record that if foundation trusts become the only game in town—as with PFI, another policy whose introduction we might regret—in terms of improving services for local people, we will be prepared to support our local hospitals while regretting the fact that that is the only option available. I know that that applies to some Labour Members, although they will not admit it. Unlike the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, we have proposed alternatives to Government proposals, as the record will show. The Conservatives have provided none. It has been enjoyable sparring with the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he thinks that he has won but has not. Events will show that to be the case. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes to Four o'clock.